W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > August 2011

RE: updates to PAQ doc for discussion

From: Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 13:03:50 +0000
To: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3131E7DF4CD2D94287870F5A931EFC23010208@EX14MB2.win.rpi.edu>
> I could not follow the example you gave, as I don't know what the semantics
> of the edges is. Do they refer to IVPof.

A is a document, B and C are specific versions of it (specific text strings).  B IVPof A, C IVPof A, C derivedFrom B. I see versionOf being applicable to B versionOf A, C versionOf A (i.e. versionOf as a subtype of IVPof), and I can see 'revisionOf' applying to C revisionOf B (i.e. revisionOf is a subtype of derivation).

If I understand, you're talking about B and C when you say:

> >> In my opinion versionOf implies that there were some changes that we
> >> are aware of, and, therefore, the characterizations we end up with
> >> are describing different entities. I would therefore prefer to
> >> describe relationship between versions using derivation rather than IVPof.

Is that correct? If so:

How would you relate B and C to A? If D is produced from C by the same type of process (e.g. another text edit) as was used to produce C from B, would it be a revision? Would there be anything one could infer between D and A?

 Jim
> > I'm confused:
> > Given
> >
> >                  A
> >               /    \
> >             B<---C
> >
> > I would say B and C are IVPof/versionOf A and C is derivedFrom B - I
> > don't see how you would choose "derivation rather than IVPof" since
> > they do different things. (To keep going, D derivedFrom C wouldn't
> > automatically make D a version/IVPof A, so one can't just infer
> > versionOf from derivation, etc.)
> In that case, I would defined VersionOf as a subrelation of DerivedFrom,
> instead of IVPof.
> 
> Khalid
> 
> 
> >
> >    Jim
> >
> >
Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 13:04:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 August 2011 13:04:46 GMT